Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Was the Italian campaign during WWII necessary or just a drain on resources and manpower? I feel it was not required and that the landings at Normandy and southern France would have gotten the job done. Would have freed up more Germans to kill communist on the eastern front...and that was always a plus.
I think the landing at Normandy was a mistake and the Italian campaign should have been the main thrust of the invasion of Europe.
I think the landing at Normandy was a mistake and the Italian campaign should have been the main thrust of the invasion of Europe.
They probably thought there were supply and command control issues with moving everything to the Med, and thought England was the best base to work from; it had factories and large naval depots to work with, and also the terrain in northern Europe was far more suitable for such a mass of men and materiel, while the route through Italy and the southern parts of Germany presented a lot of bottlenecks. Launching from England left the allies with a safe 'back door' with short and secure supply lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_BodyguardFour sites were considered for the landings: Brittany, the Cotentin Peninsula, Normandy, and Pas de Calais. As Brittany and Cotentin are peninsulas, it would have been possible for the Germans to cut off the Allied advance at a relatively narrow isthmus, so these sites were rejected.[15] As the Pas de Calais is the closest point in continental Europe to Britain, the Germans considered it to be the most likely initial landing zone, so it was the most heavily fortified region.[16] But it offered few opportunities for expansion, as the area is bounded by numerous rivers and canals,[17] whereas landings on a broad front in Normandy would permit simultaneous threats against the port of Cherbourg, coastal ports further west in Brittany, and an overland attack towards Paris and eventually into Germany. Normandy was hence chosen as the landing site.[18] The most serious drawback of the Normandy coast—the lack of port facilities—would be overcome through the development of artificial Mulberry harbours.[19] A series of specialised tanks, nicknamed Hobart's Funnies, were created to deal with conditions expected during the Normandy campaign, such as scaling sea-walls and providing close support on the beach.[20]
And, I did get my Churchill wars mixed up; Anzio was Churchill's idea. My bad.Planning for Bodyguard was begun in 1943 under the auspices of an organisation called the London Controlling Section (LCS). A draft strategy, referred to as Plan Jael, was presented to Allied High Command at the Tehran Conference in late November and approved on December 6. The major objective of this plan was to lead the Germans to believe that the invasion of northwestern Europe would come later than was actually planned, and to threaten attacks at other locations than the true objective, including the Pas de Calais, the Balkans, southern France, Norway, and Soviet attacks in Bulgaria and northern Norway. Operation Bodyguard was a strategic success. The Normandy landings caught German defences unaware and subsequent deception led Hitler into delaying reinforcement from the Calais region for nearly seven weeks (the original plan had specified 14 days).
Normandy is a gigantic propaganda coup for the FDR administration. The incredible valor of the common Soldier is one of the most stirring issues in the Normandy invasion but the much touted "secrecy" related to Normandy is mostly bull shit designed to shift focus from the incredible casualties. The Allies were stuck in a 20 mile front for six weeks after the "longest day" and took over 300,000 casualties in a month so it's clear that the Germans weren't "fooled" for long. Life was cheap and Ike saiid he would pour in "as many men as it took". That's not strategy, it is carnage.
I think the landing at Normandy was a mistake and the Italian campaign should have been the main thrust of the invasion of Europe.
I think the landing at Normandy was a mistake and the Italian campaign should have been the main thrust of the invasion of Europe.
The Italian campaign was a bloodbath. The terrain FAR favors the defender. One regiment of Fallschirmjaeger defeated TWO divisions in one famous battle. The amount of material needed to defeat even small units was extraordinary.
The Normandy campaign was difficult in the bocage region, but once that was dealt with it was a free run across open terrain. Perfect for the modern style of warfare. Italy was WWI revisited. The battle for France was a race that was only interrupted because they outran their fuel supply.
Had that been kept up, the war would have been over 6 months earlier than it was. If they had stuck to an Italian front only...we'd STILL be there!
I think the landing at Normandy was a mistake and the Italian campaign should have been the main thrust of the invasion of Europe.
The Italian campaign was a bloodbath. The terrain FAR favors the defender. One regiment of Fallschirmjaeger defeated TWO divisions in one famous battle. The amount of material needed to defeat even small units was extraordinary.
The Normandy campaign was difficult in the bocage region, but once that was dealt with it was a free run across open terrain. Perfect for the modern style of warfare. Italy was WWI revisited. The battle for France was a race that was only interrupted because they outran their fuel supply.
Had that been kept up, the war would have been over 6 months earlier than it was. If they had stuck to an Italian front only...we'd STILL be there!
The Allies treated the Italian campaign as the step child of the invasion of Europe. Did Ike really think the Germans would be unable to respond to Normandy when they were allegedly decoyed to Calias which was 200 miles away? The breakout cost 3000,000 Allied casualties.
The Italian campaign was a bloodbath. The terrain FAR favors the defender. One regiment of Fallschirmjaeger defeated TWO divisions in one famous battle. The amount of material needed to defeat even small units was extraordinary.
The Normandy campaign was difficult in the bocage region, but once that was dealt with it was a free run across open terrain. Perfect for the modern style of warfare. Italy was WWI revisited. The battle for France was a race that was only interrupted because they outran their fuel supply.
Had that been kept up, the war would have been over 6 months earlier than it was. If they had stuck to an Italian front only...we'd STILL be there!
The Allies treated the Italian campaign as the step child of the invasion of Europe. Did Ike really think the Germans would be unable to respond to Normandy when they were allegedly decoyed to Calias which was 200 miles away? The breakout cost 3000,000 Allied casualties.
As they should have. The Italian campaign would have been a true meat grinder. Yes there were casualties in France. The point is the Germans suffered MORE.
They lost an entire army' worth of equipment in the Falaise pocket, and if Montgomery had been quicker on the ball they would have lost the army too. And that would probably have been the end. Just like in North Africa, Monty was too slow an allowed the enemy to slip away to fight again another day.
He really was worthless.
The Allies treated the Italian campaign as the step child of the invasion of Europe. Did Ike really think the Germans would be unable to respond to Normandy when they were allegedly decoyed to Calias which was 200 miles away? The breakout cost 3000,000 Allied casualties.
As they should have. The Italian campaign would have been a true meat grinder. Yes there were casualties in France. The point is the Germans suffered MORE.
They lost an entire army' worth of equipment in the Falaise pocket, and if Montgomery had been quicker on the ball they would have lost the army too. And that would probably have been the end. Just like in North Africa, Monty was too slow an allowed the enemy to slip away to fight again another day.
He really was worthless.
Churchill had dreams of restoring the British Empire, and nightmares of losing British manhood in another WWI trench warfare, those dominated his involvement in the war. He was content to sit on his island and wait for the USSR complete the war.
Any fortified position can be overcome if you have more Troops than they have ammunition. Normandy was a meat grinder and the administration promoted the myth that Germans were outflanked with a diversion and secrecy. How effective was the diversion that incidentally cost the lives of about 15,000 innocent French civilians when the diversion was half a day away? It's all bull shit to cover for the incredible casualties. Historians agree that a mere half hour pre-invasion shelling was an incredible mistake when they shelled fortified positions for days in the Pacific but Ike was apparently consumed with secrecy. The Allies let Montgomery run the show in Italy and the confusion over command structure was a factor in the initial setbacks.
